Analyzes outcomes in pediatric recipients of ABO-incompatible liver transplants, suggesting improved eligibility could reduce waitlist mortality.
BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) is standard of care for children with end-stage liver disease, but waitlist mortality remains high, especially among infants. ABO-incompatible (ABO-I) LT offers a strategy to expand the donor pool, though concerns over antibody-mediated rejection have limited widespread use. METHODS: We analyzed outcomes of ABO-I LT recipients using the Society of Pediatric Liver Transplantation (SPLIT) registry from 2011-2022, a prospective, multicenter database capturing over 75% of pediatric LTs in the United States and Canada. Clinical characteristics, post-transplant complications, and graft and patient survival were compared between matched ABO-I and ABO-compatible (ABO-C) recipients. ABO-I transplant recipients were matched 1:5 with ABO-C recipients using year of transplant, age and clinical status at the time of transplant. A center-level survey assessed institutional practices regarding ABO-I LT. RESULTS: Among 3,372 pediatric LT recipients, 155 received ABO-I grafts and were matched to 775 recipients of ABO-C grafts. ABO-I recipients had higher rates of ventilator support, parenteral nutrition, and ICU care at time of transplant compared to ABO-C recipients. There was no statistically significant difference in three-year graft (87.8% vs. 92.6%, p=0.06) or patient survival (93.9% vs. 96.6%, p=0.11) between ABO-I and ABO-C groups. In children ≤2 years of age, there was a higher incidence of early portal venous thrombosis in the ABO-I group (8.5% vs. 3.7%, p=0.025). Survey responses revealed substantial variability in center ABO-I eligibility criteria, desensitization protocols, and immunosuppressive strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes for pediatric ABO-I and ABO-C LT recipients within the SPLIT registry are comparable, supporting broader implementation of ABO-I LT to reduce pediatric waitlist mortality. Variability in institutional practices underscores the need for prospective studies to inform standardized protocols and optimize outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bedoyan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: